As a fellow mastering engineer here's how I explain my job to children (and sometimes adults too). I ask them to imagine a drawing of a horse (or whatever) that is just a little bit fuzzy but you can still see clearly it's a horse. My job is to 'uncover' the details that are important and sometimes hide small smudges that aren't important. When I'm done, all the good details of the horse are easier to see, and if I've done my job properly and the horse had good breeding to start with I can make it look like a thoroughbred! Great video guys!! Re: loudness. I lean strongly towards healthy, exciting dynamics. I don't get the idea of 'loudness' for loudness sake, or bragging rights, which I believe Dan Worral has already won LOL! Pushing 'loudness' also flattens the perspective which I don't care for. And besides, since the death of the CD (as a commercial format) and the exponential annual growth of streaming (using 'volume' normalization) loudness is a dynamics killer and makes music sound dull and lifeless. "Loudness is dead, Long Live Dynamics!"
Good one guys. Really enjoyed the conversation. Never felt like I had to duck a punch. 🙂 For Part II (?): How about talking genres & how they effect loudness decisions. EX: EDM vs an acoustic ensemble. You don't want to hear an 'unplugged' at -8 LUFS. You do want to hear EDM at -8 LUFS. Also the issue of short term loudness vs. integrated loudness. You don't want EDM to sag, so integrated and short term LUFS will be close. Wider macro dynamics on an 8 minute piece with 3 sections might be important. This might drive the integrated down but sections can still be LOUD short term.
Hi Nicholas, thanks for the great content you share! I recently got feedback from a client who was told from a club owner that the mix sounded so bad that he cant play the song on his PA system (function one). No bass and too mich high end. Could you do a video about things to look out for when mastering for big Club systems?
A point that I think I hear Nicholas implying, but he doesn't quite spell out (or maybe doesn't intend at all), is that if you want to end up with a good-sounding and really loud master you have to plan for an execute that from the start of the recording process. Any noise issues, phase weirdness, stereo problems, mix imbalances, etc. will get magnified as you bring the loudness up. When you want a super hi-fi finished product, you have to aim for that at every step of the process in order to get there.
The conversation around loudness @ ≈ 23 minutes is really interesting. There tends to be a real misunderstanding about measurement and units. Crest factor tends to be what I focus on, when I start. But LUFS is a confusing measurement especially when we add differing time components. An example I see a lot is actually with dB. Where people believe that the different dB measurements change be interchanged. Even dBFS has different standards, where 0 might be set differently. Don't even try to figure out all the db suffixes. Units are weird and seldom truly understood. Great conversation. Loudness normalization has been great for consumers. There is a reason that most other media have strict standards. If you want to know how the general public feels about normalization, just tune into the (tv) streaming service Ad conversation. Edit: Always cool to hear reference to tools with heritage in the 90s. The TC Electronics stuff is a bit underrated today, but man, some of those finalizer presets are legendary.
Great conversation! I always tell people I get handed over balloons with beautiful artwork on them that need to be inflated. All balloons have their own right size that fits the artwork but also have physical limitations to how big they can get. I make sure the colors won’t fade, the lines will stay as sharp as they’re intended to be, and finally hang them in the right place with the other balloons. Pretty silly analysis maybe but people do get the point most of the time 🤣
Which not many people have So yeah it's a good point to make If you have an amazing hifi system (or just studio monitors in a good enough room) this dynamic range will sound amazing and add to the music But yeah we don't master or mix for the small section of listeners Rambling on, apologies
@@Notinserviceij But there's no need to squash the masters with waveforms that look like bricks, not even for listeners with small Bluetooth speakers. There can very well be a compromise that makes albums sound good both on a hi-fi system and on a Bluetooth speaker, and the notion that a record with good dynamics can't be competitive is, to me, a sort of collective hallucination.
Fantastic chat with Ian. He’s an amazing guy with deep insights. Done both of your courses by the way and learnt different things in both to great success.
Thanks! This question is for both. If you know that the client gonna release on cd and for streaming do you send the file for CD at something like -9 LUFS/-0.1 dBTP and one with lower LUFS/ -1.0 dBTP for streaming?-. Best/Mathias
This is a great conversation. I appreciate being able to listen to it. And these 2 guys are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to loudness. But neither one is so staunchly committed to their way of seeing things and can see the value in each other's points of view. And I have purchased courses from both of these guys and I gotta say that the courses are top level. 👍🏿
Guys come on. Get a grip. Work too full scale 0000 for the track peaks master it to this. Do some other lower gain version for different deliveries. So simple.
MeterPlugs Perception A/B is all you need to find the sweet spot! If the client asks you for a louder master you can simply push the loudness up to the level where the texture starts to break up. Perception takes the loudness out of the equation.
A mastering engineer can't really make a song louder; it's up to the artist to create a track so compelling that listeners will want to crank up the volume. This was such an awesome conversation thank you both!
If I could go back to my youth and live my life over I would have become a mastering engineer. So thank you for giving me a wonderful conversation to geek out over. I've learned a lot from both of you guys, so very cool to see you talking together here. Thanks for a great video!
I thought I would not have something to say, but now I feel I need to write an essay. I have watched all of Ian's videos and podcasts. For years I had my brain melt on what is loud and what is not, what is this -14dB target they are talking about, why I should change my approach on loudness, wasted a lot of hours trying with the LUFS, only to find out that it's all crap. I just went back to mastering the way I used to. There is nothing wrong targeting loud levels and working around that instead of doing the opposite. It's the equivalent of "mixing into a limiter". You can have great results working like that and there is no specific rule on how an engineer can achieve the end result, it's all up to them and their knowledge, taste and experience to achieve that, as in any other case scenario. It's pretty simple. If you are at -14dB LUFS integrated, you get 0 dB volume reduction, 13->1, 12->2, 11->3, 10->4, 9->5, 8->6, 7->7, 6->8 and so on. So if your LUFS are at -8.2 how much does it get reduced on UA-cam? 14-8,2=5,8 dB. So how will it sound like? Turn your volume 5,8 down and find out! So there are some "general purpose" targets to go for depending on the genre: Hiphop/POP = -8 EDM/Dubstep = -5 Rock/Country = -9 Metal/Guitar heavy = -7 etc. There are other music genres that you just don't care, such as Ambient and experimental they could be whatever LUFS. I know that many people will say that's wrong and that's the wrong way of doing it, or that it doesn't make any sense because you destroy the music, but this is not the case. You can work your magic inside your limits just fine and because you have those limits, maybe you can have even better results.
'So if your LUFS are at -8.2 how much does it get reduced on UA-cam? 14-8,2=5,8 dB. So how will it sound like? Turn your volume 5,8 down and find out!' - yeah, exactly. I don't get why Ian is talking about making eq decisions based on comparing two tracks at the same LUFS level instead the same percieved loudness level. The content of the mix dictates what frequency ranges will be pronounced more and the mixes should be level-matched manually, not by any LUFS meter
Great questions, thanks ! The reason matched LUFS is important is because that’s how most people hear the music on streaming services - which is where most people listen these days, especially for music discovery. These companies are using LUFS to match loudness, so in my opinion it’s important that we listen that way too. Not all the time, or while we’re working, but as a check to make sure we’re happy with the result. Does that make sense ? I’m happy to say more if not 👍 (I also agree with Nicholas that LUFS do a pretty decent job of assessing perceived loudness. Not perfect, but pretty good. The main complication is the difference in results from comparing the integrated values for material that is very different, and I think this is what causes the most confusion with the results of normalization. So for example we don’t *want* and acoustic ballad to measure or sound as loud as black metal, but that’s what Track Mode normalization often does, in shuffle and playlists. TIDAL’s method of using Album Mode all the time gives much more musically satisfying results, IMO)
@@ProductionAdvice IMO, you also have to take into consideration the structure of the song. If we are comparing 2 songs with the same integrated LUFS measurement, but one of them has a long sweeping intro or outro, or long quiet parts, then its loud parts are going to be louder than the other song. As we are the engineers, we know every little detail of the material we are working on, so we know from experience just by only looking at the waveform. If half of the song is quiet and the other half is very loud (it's not normal, but it may happen), then if you think you're just going to crank it up to get to -7 LUFS, you are going to destroy it.
@@panorama_mastering Do you really just use Vintageverb and the Protools Stock? From all your videos I thought you'd be the type of guy who has 5-10 different reverbs :) Liquidsonics / Reverb Foundry stuff. Btw have you tried the Moog Pedals? The Delay has a really nice depth.
More of a teacher student vibe but a good watch. You kinda become a politician when certain info is revealed. Is like when I mentioned how there was many factors for 96k you kinda threw it to tracking not mixing. You criticized gain staging in a video but I believe you’re just missing its uses, it’s not just all technical stuff, like this guy was trying to open up about music first, even tho he’s technical by default not with words. But I do like your 3 questions, what do u like, what u don’t, and what’s the reference? That keeps you engaged and potential for competitive growth to be the best, he’s comfortable where he’s at and having old fashioned dialog, stress free but, no pain no gain as they say, no disrespect just mean people like Mike Dean, Dave Pensado, Jayson Joshua, Manny etc they’re all over the place in a good way. Great content…I would say “mate” but that slang is an acquired taste, too close to mating.😅
Fair assertion. The whole time I was manically writing notes, with the aim of highlighting and circling through to discussions that peaked my interest. I am trying to improve my communication skills with guests for the net benefit of the audience.
I was Referencing a Yello Track, the Rhythm Divine and was surprised to see everything in the low end bouncing around -30db, I havent looked at more to see if they go louder, they always sound perfect.
I don't get why Ian is talking about making eq decisions based on comparing two tracks at the same LUFS level instead of the same perceived loudness. The content of the mix dictates what frequency ranges will (and should) be pronounced more and the mixes should be level-matched manually, not by using any LUFS meter. Because we tend to hear different frequency ranges differently and our ears are more precise in judging the loudness than any LUFS meters. I always level-match with my console 1 fader while listening without looking at the screen and doing fast A/B on the controller. 9 out of 10 times it's different LUFS values but to an ear the section of the song is perfectly level-matched. LUFS level-matching is far, far from perfect. But that said, I'm not a mastering engineer. But I have experience working with mastering engineers making songs on one album really different in volume while claiming they're all the same LUFS value. For the client it was usually not that big of a deal but I could easily tell that one song was 0.3dB or 0.5 louder than the next one etc.
I agree with Nicholas, I think LUFS do a pretty decent job of assessing perceived loudness. Not perfect, but pretty good. IMO the main confusion is the difference in results from comparing the integrated values for material that is intended to sound very different, and I think this is what causes the most confusion with the results of normalization. We don’t want an acoustic ballad and black metal to measure or sound the same, for example. Integrated LUFS is still important though because that’s how most people hear the music on streaming services - which is where most people listen these days, especially for music discovery. These companies are using LUFS to match loudness, so in my opinion it’s important that we listen that way too. Not all the time, or while we’re working, but as a check to make sure we’re happy with the result. Does that make sense ? I’m happy to say more if not 👍
I am a 60 year old music fan and a producer who enjoys micro dynamics in music. Our ears trained by lots of great dynamic music of the past. be it a classical composition, a big band jazz or a folk song that screams the words on chorus and we love the emotion that those dynamics makes us feel the certain way. We used to look next to each other when the Garbage song hits the chorus. But this is not a case that every piece of music should be dynamic in order to us to feel its intended emotions. One can listen Skrillex and feel emotions with no dynamics at all. But if you master Count Basie to 5LUFS it will not sound pleasant and all the emotion will be distroyed for sure. So some music favors of some contrast and dynamics some music does not. New generation of people who listen music after the loudness wars began actually doesn’t care much about internal dynamics of music as we old people do. They even annoyed and offended and turn the volume down or skip to the next track if the music is too dynamic for them e.g. singer gets loud on chorus. Their ears trained differently than ours. Not every genre but every piece of music whether it is EDM or jazz should be treated separately by mastering engineers who all wish to, but clients, artists and labels push them the wrong way and I hear thousands of bad mastered songs which deserve a better mastering(less distortion, more contrast and dynamic). But it’s just old me. At the end clients are happy, labels are happy with bad mastering but I am not which should be the only criteria. That’s pathetic. And who says louder is better should be trained. Louder is just louder. I am using Spotify without the loudness normalization and I use my simple volume controller if something annoys me but we are talking about 2-3 db adjustments that I don’t care.
A lot of times it's not (or not only) bad mastering but bad mixing and production decisions which lead to non dynamic, distorted records. For me the absolute edge of loud and dynamic at the same time are CLA mixes. They are compressed but still you can hear some drastic volume changes between the sections of the song, cymbals are sounding very open and dynamic, everything feels great. But guys nowadays took it way past that point and compress up to the point of removing almost any dynamics and introducing a lot of bad distortion
The first Skype podcast I do not need to download and process on my computer to make it audible. Audio engineers know their work!
Hey, I recorded my audio with the onboard mic on my macbook pro ;)
@@panorama_masteringOne of the best laptop mics out there! 🦾
As a fellow mastering engineer here's how I explain my job to children (and sometimes adults too). I ask them to imagine a drawing of a horse (or whatever) that is just a little bit fuzzy but you can still see clearly it's a horse. My job is to 'uncover' the details that are important and sometimes hide small smudges that aren't important. When I'm done, all the good details of the horse are easier to see, and if I've done my job properly and the horse had good breeding to start with I can make it look like a thoroughbred! Great video guys!!
Re: loudness. I lean strongly towards healthy, exciting dynamics. I don't get the idea of 'loudness' for loudness sake, or bragging rights, which I believe Dan Worral has already won LOL! Pushing 'loudness' also flattens the perspective which I don't care for. And besides, since the death of the CD (as a commercial format) and the exponential annual growth of streaming (using 'volume' normalization) loudness is a dynamics killer and makes music sound dull and lifeless. "Loudness is dead, Long Live Dynamics!"
Good one guys. Really enjoyed the conversation. Never felt like I had to duck a punch. 🙂
For Part II (?): How about talking genres & how they effect loudness decisions. EX: EDM vs an acoustic ensemble. You don't want to hear an 'unplugged' at -8 LUFS. You do want to hear EDM at -8 LUFS. Also the issue of short term loudness vs. integrated loudness. You don't want EDM to sag, so integrated and short term LUFS will be close. Wider macro dynamics on an 8 minute piece with 3 sections might be important. This might drive the integrated down but sections can still be LOUD short term.
Dynamic gang here, loud is good tho but not flat and dead
Big phat waveforms
Hi Nicholas, thanks for the great content you share! I recently got feedback from a client who was told from a club owner that the mix sounded so bad that he cant play the song on his PA system (function one). No bass and too mich high end. Could you do a video about things to look out for when mastering for big Club systems?
Great idea!! I will definitely do so
A point that I think I hear Nicholas implying, but he doesn't quite spell out (or maybe doesn't intend at all), is that if you want to end up with a good-sounding and really loud master you have to plan for an execute that from the start of the recording process. Any noise issues, phase weirdness, stereo problems, mix imbalances, etc. will get magnified as you bring the loudness up. When you want a super hi-fi finished product, you have to aim for that at every step of the process in order to get there.
Thanks Nick and Ian for the interesting conversation
My pleasure!
The song is the thing that stands up to the competition not the level.
Bang on
The conversation around loudness @ ≈ 23 minutes is really interesting. There tends to be a real misunderstanding about measurement and units. Crest factor tends to be what I focus on, when I start.
But LUFS is a confusing measurement especially when we add differing time components.
An example I see a lot is actually with dB. Where people believe that the different dB measurements change be interchanged. Even dBFS has different standards, where 0 might be set differently. Don't even try to figure out all the db suffixes. Units are weird and seldom truly understood.
Great conversation. Loudness normalization has been great for consumers. There is a reason that most other media have strict standards. If you want to know how the general public feels about normalization, just tune into the (tv) streaming service Ad conversation.
Edit: Always cool to hear reference to tools with heritage in the 90s. The TC Electronics stuff is a bit underrated today, but man, some of those finalizer presets are legendary.
Great conversation! I always tell people I get handed over balloons with beautiful artwork on them that need to be inflated. All balloons have their own right size that fits the artwork but also have physical limitations to how big they can get. I make sure the colors won’t fade, the lines will stay as sharp as they’re intended to be, and finally hang them in the right place with the other balloons. Pretty silly analysis maybe but people do get the point most of the time 🤣
Interesting analogy!
what do you use for remote mixing and mastering sessions with clients? zoom? audiomovers? can you drop in your perspective about such situations?
I don’t stream remote sessions.
I'm not that experienced so I reference recent tracks in the genre.
Nice! Good to feel out what people are enjoying :)
Dynamic is always better when a track is played on a good speaker system
Which not many people have
So yeah it's a good point to make
If you have an amazing hifi system (or just studio monitors in a good enough room) this dynamic range will sound amazing and add to the music
But yeah we don't master or mix for the small section of listeners
Rambling on, apologies
@@Notinserviceij But there's no need to squash the masters with waveforms that look like bricks, not even for listeners with small Bluetooth speakers. There can very well be a compromise that makes albums sound good both on a hi-fi system and on a Bluetooth speaker, and the notion that a record with good dynamics can't be competitive is, to me, a sort of collective hallucination.
Fantastic chat with Ian. He’s an amazing guy with deep insights. Done both of your courses by the way and learnt different things in both to great success.
Thanks! This question is for both. If you know that the client gonna release on cd and for streaming do you send the file for CD at something like -9 LUFS/-0.1 dBTP and one with lower LUFS/ -1.0 dBTP for streaming?-. Best/Mathias
I don’t. One master to rule them all.
^^ This
(I think I recognise that catchphrase 😂)
This is a great conversation. I appreciate being able to listen to it. And these 2 guys are on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to loudness. But neither one is so staunchly committed to their way of seeing things and can see the value in each other's points of view. And I have purchased courses from both of these guys and I gotta say that the courses are top level. 👍🏿
Great flow of interesting topics, thanks for sharing both of your experiences, insights and knowledge.
Guys come on. Get a grip. Work too full scale 0000 for the track peaks master it to this. Do some other lower gain version for different deliveries. So simple.
MeterPlugs Perception A/B is all you need to find the sweet spot! If the client asks you for a louder master you can simply push the loudness up to the level where the texture starts to break up. Perception takes the loudness out of the equation.
A mastering engineer can't really make a song louder; it's up to the artist to create a track so compelling that listeners will want to crank up the volume.
This was such an awesome conversation thank you both!
Yes he can
I really enjoyed that conversation =]
Thanks man!
If I could go back to my youth and live my life over I would have become a mastering engineer. So thank you for giving me a wonderful conversation to geek out over. I've learned a lot from both of you guys, so very cool to see you talking together here. Thanks for a great video!
A pleasure, glad you enjoyed it !
Very cool discussion. I think you both deserve a shot of the finest whiskey 🥃!
I thought I would not have something to say, but now I feel I need to write an essay. I have watched all of Ian's videos and podcasts.
For years I had my brain melt on what is loud and what is not, what is this -14dB target they are talking about, why I should change my approach on loudness, wasted a lot of hours trying with the LUFS, only to find out that it's all crap. I just went back to mastering the way I used to.
There is nothing wrong targeting loud levels and working around that instead of doing the opposite. It's the equivalent of "mixing into a limiter". You can have great results working like that and there is no specific rule on how an engineer can achieve the end result, it's all up to them and their knowledge, taste and experience to achieve that, as in any other case scenario.
It's pretty simple. If you are at -14dB LUFS integrated, you get 0 dB volume reduction, 13->1, 12->2, 11->3, 10->4, 9->5, 8->6, 7->7, 6->8 and so on.
So if your LUFS are at -8.2 how much does it get reduced on UA-cam? 14-8,2=5,8 dB. So how will it sound like? Turn your volume 5,8 down and find out!
So there are some "general purpose" targets to go for depending on the genre:
Hiphop/POP = -8
EDM/Dubstep = -5
Rock/Country = -9
Metal/Guitar heavy = -7
etc.
There are other music genres that you just don't care, such as Ambient and experimental they could be whatever LUFS.
I know that many people will say that's wrong and that's the wrong way of doing it, or that it doesn't make any sense because you destroy the music, but this is not the case. You can work your magic inside your limits just fine and because you have those limits, maybe you can have even better results.
'So if your LUFS are at -8.2 how much does it get reduced on UA-cam? 14-8,2=5,8 dB. So how will it sound like? Turn your volume 5,8 down and find out!' - yeah, exactly. I don't get why Ian is talking about making eq decisions based on comparing two tracks at the same LUFS level instead the same percieved loudness level. The content of the mix dictates what frequency ranges will be pronounced more and the mixes should be level-matched manually, not by any LUFS meter
Great questions, thanks ! The reason matched LUFS is important is because that’s how most people hear the music on streaming services - which is where most people listen these days, especially for music discovery.
These companies are using LUFS to match loudness, so in my opinion it’s important that we listen that way too. Not all the time, or while we’re working, but as a check to make sure we’re happy with the result.
Does that make sense ? I’m happy to say more if not 👍
(I also agree with Nicholas that LUFS do a pretty decent job of assessing perceived loudness. Not perfect, but pretty good. The main complication is the difference in results from comparing the integrated values for material that is very different, and I think this is what causes the most confusion with the results of normalization. So for example we don’t *want* and acoustic ballad to measure or sound as loud as black metal, but that’s what Track Mode normalization often does, in shuffle and playlists. TIDAL’s method of using Album Mode all the time gives much more musically satisfying results, IMO)
@@ProductionAdvice IMO, you also have to take into consideration the structure of the song. If we are comparing 2 songs with the same integrated LUFS measurement, but one of them has a long sweeping intro or outro, or long quiet parts, then its loud parts are going to be louder than the other song. As we are the engineers, we know every little detail of the material we are working on, so we know from experience just by only looking at the waveform. If half of the song is quiet and the other half is very loud (it's not normal, but it may happen), then if you think you're just going to crank it up to get to -7 LUFS, you are going to destroy it.
@@konstantinos777Yup, great point
Wait! Where are your reverbs? 😂
Revvverrbbb?
@@panorama_mastering Do you really just use Vintageverb and the Protools Stock? From all your videos I thought you'd be the type of guy who has 5-10 different reverbs :) Liquidsonics / Reverb Foundry stuff.
Btw have you tried the Moog Pedals? The Delay has a really nice depth.
More of a teacher student vibe but a good watch. You kinda become a politician when certain info is revealed. Is like when I mentioned how there was many factors for 96k you kinda threw it to tracking not mixing.
You criticized gain staging in a video but I believe you’re just missing its uses, it’s not just all technical stuff, like this guy was trying to open up about music first, even tho he’s technical by default not with words. But I do like your 3 questions, what do u like, what u don’t, and what’s the reference? That keeps you engaged and potential for competitive growth to be the best, he’s comfortable where he’s at and having old fashioned dialog, stress free but, no pain no gain as they say, no disrespect just mean people like Mike Dean, Dave Pensado, Jayson Joshua, Manny etc they’re all over the place in a good way. Great content…I would say “mate” but that slang is an acquired taste, too close to mating.😅
Fair assertion. The whole time I was manically writing notes, with the aim of highlighting and circling through to discussions that peaked my interest. I am trying to improve my communication skills with guests for the net benefit of the audience.
what is a common level you get in before mastering ( in dynamicrange/rms)?
Genuinely a massive variety. Some stuff is down at -20 LUFS or lower, some is already up at -10 or higher.
LOUD vs DyNamIC
Nice talk in this one with Ian
Thanks man!
Such a great conversation! Thanks so much for presenting this!
I was Referencing a Yello Track, the Rhythm Divine and was surprised to see everything in the low end bouncing around -30db, I havent looked at more to see if they go louder, they always sound perfect.
You have to co host Ians podcast!
He’s doing a killer job on his podcast
I don't get why Ian is talking about making eq decisions based on comparing two tracks at the same LUFS level instead of the same perceived loudness. The content of the mix dictates what frequency ranges will (and should) be pronounced more and the mixes should be level-matched manually, not by using any LUFS meter. Because we tend to hear different frequency ranges differently and our ears are more precise in judging the loudness than any LUFS meters. I always level-match with my console 1 fader while listening without looking at the screen and doing fast A/B on the controller. 9 out of 10 times it's different LUFS values but to an ear the section of the song is perfectly level-matched. LUFS level-matching is far, far from perfect. But that said, I'm not a mastering engineer. But I have experience working with mastering engineers making songs on one album really different in volume while claiming they're all the same LUFS value. For the client it was usually not that big of a deal but I could easily tell that one song was 0.3dB or 0.5 louder than the next one etc.
I think the k filters lufs measurements use are pretty accurate for level matching.
I agree with Nicholas, I think LUFS do a pretty decent job of assessing perceived loudness. Not perfect, but pretty good. IMO the main confusion is the difference in results from comparing the integrated values for material that is intended to sound very different, and I think this is what causes the most confusion with the results of normalization. We don’t want an acoustic ballad and black metal to measure or sound the same, for example.
Integrated LUFS is still important though because that’s how most people hear the music on streaming services - which is where most people listen these days, especially for music discovery.
These companies are using LUFS to match loudness, so in my opinion it’s important that we listen that way too. Not all the time, or while we’re working, but as a check to make sure we’re happy with the result.
Does that make sense ? I’m happy to say more if not 👍
I am a 60 year old music fan and a producer who enjoys micro dynamics in music. Our ears trained by lots of great dynamic music of the past. be it a classical composition, a big band jazz or a folk song that screams the words on chorus and we love the emotion that those dynamics makes us feel the certain way. We used to look next to each other when the Garbage song hits the chorus. But this is not a case that every piece of music should be dynamic in order to us to feel its intended emotions. One can listen Skrillex and feel emotions with no dynamics at all. But if you master Count Basie to 5LUFS it will not sound pleasant and all the emotion will be distroyed for sure. So some music favors of some contrast and dynamics some music does not.
New generation of people who listen music after the loudness wars began actually doesn’t care much about internal dynamics of music as we old people do. They even annoyed and offended and turn the volume down or skip to the next track if the music is too dynamic for them e.g. singer gets loud on chorus. Their ears trained differently than ours. Not every genre but every piece of music whether it is EDM or jazz should be treated separately by mastering engineers who all wish to, but clients, artists and labels push them the wrong way and I hear thousands of bad mastered songs which deserve a better mastering(less distortion, more contrast and dynamic). But it’s just old me. At the end clients are happy, labels are happy with bad mastering but I am not which should be the only criteria. That’s pathetic. And who says louder is better should be trained. Louder is just louder. I am using Spotify without the loudness normalization and I use my simple volume controller if something annoys me but we are talking about 2-3 db adjustments that I don’t care.
A lot of times it's not (or not only) bad mastering but bad mixing and production decisions which lead to non dynamic, distorted records. For me the absolute edge of loud and dynamic at the same time are CLA mixes. They are compressed but still you can hear some drastic volume changes between the sections of the song, cymbals are sounding very open and dynamic, everything feels great. But guys nowadays took it way past that point and compress up to the point of removing almost any dynamics and introducing a lot of bad distortion